Talk:Genetic Studies and the Khazar Hypothesis

This Article and its sources

To the IP 2603:8000:9E3F:FFF1:EC43:F0CC:270D:C902 Two users, User:Þjarkur and User:Onel5969, as well as myself have replaced this article with a redirect to the better sourced parent article, giving explanations. You have reverted us claiming that this is vandalism. Please familiarize yourself with vandalism as the term is used here on Wikipedia here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism You have recently stated that this article contains information that the other does not. However, as I have explained in my earlier edit summaries, those sources and your use of them here is problematic. The article states:

"Other studies support the theory, for example "A MOSAIC OF PEOPLE: THE JEWISH STORY AND A REASSESSMENT OF THE DNA EVIDENCE" [2] by Ellen Levy Coffman and "The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses" [3] by Eran Elhaik."

Besides the fact that this is WP:UNDUE because the Khazar theory is a small minority position among geneticists and arguably WP:FRINGE, the citing of Elhaik after the Behar study is misleading since the Behar study criticizes Ehlaik (which came before), (and Elhaik's research has been widely criticized). The Coffman study you cite in that same section does not support the Khazar theory in its classic form (that Ashkenazi Jews are of primarily Khazar descent) but instead suggests that Ashkenazi Jews may have a small amount of Khazar ancestry (in addition to Middle Eastern and European), - and even the hypothesis of minor Khazar admixture has been mostly disgarded in later research. The Ellen Levy Coffman paper is very early (from 2004, even earlier than the Elhaik study) and and its speculations have been superceded by more recent research. Thus your use of it is also somewhat misleading. Your citing of these studies as though they are recent or a response to Behar et al.'s position is likewise misleading. It is also not clear whether Coffman is an expert in the field of genetics (what her qualifications are) or whether her paper is peer-reviewed (and by whom and where). Judging from this discussion (here [[1]]) it seems that she is not an expert/geneticist and thus would not be a reliable source (WP:RS) appropriate here.

In addition, the text of that section (which begins with "Other studies support the theory, for example.." and cites those two sources) is almost exactly the same material used repeatedly by the blocked User:Ultrabomb and periodically inserted by their many socks into various articles, and repeatedly removed by ither users (see WP:BANREVERT.

Also, the section discussing haplogroup Q does not mention Khazars at all and is sourced from a FamilyTreeDNA link which also doea not mention them. So it's use in this article seems to be a clear case of WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH, which is against Wikipedia policies (it's relevance to an article about the Khazar theory is nowhere explicit in the source, and interpreting the source/deciding yourself that it relates to the topic without it being explicit is WP:OR). All of the sources in this article (except for Behar et al. 2013 which is in the parent article), and/or the way they are used, appear to be problematic. Like users Þjarkur and Onel5969, I do not see the purpose of this article. And it seems to me to only serve as a WP:POVFORK. Skllagyook (talk) 23:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Response

You made a fair point about Haplogroup Q. I clarified the relevance. I also put the part about the studies supporting the Khazar Hypothesis before the part about the study that doesn't. The age of Ellen Levy Coffman's study and her qualifications are irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:9E3F:FFF1:209D:47D7:1F02:EBC6 (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Levy Coffman's qualifications are very relevant, as generally are authors' qualifications in articles dealing with specialized subjects (e.g. scientific ones). See WP:RS. She is not a geneticist (and has not published peer-reviewed studies in reliable genetics publications) and thus her opinions on genetics are not RS according to Wikipedia policies (otherwise any unqualified person or party's opinions would be admissable). The source's age can also matter, particularly if contradicted by most more recent research. See WP:RS AGE.

And the section on haplogroup Q that is sourced to FamilyTreeDNA has no place here since it does not mention Khazars (even if Levy Coffman connects Q to them - which is also no longer a commonly held view). Including the FTDNA source here when it itself does not mention the article's topic because you personally think it is relevant and synthesizing/adding/juxtaposing it with Coffman's statements is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Given that Coffman is not WP:RS, the FTDNA source has no relevance under WP:NOR, and Elhaik and Behar are already in the parent article, the purpose of this article is unclear.

Skllagyook (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Qualifications don't mean shit. If you're right, you're right. If you're wrong, you're wrong. I already pointed out the relevance of Haplogroup Q. I even edited my page accordingly if you bothered to read it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ 2603:8000:9e3f:fff1:209d:47d7:1f02:ebc6 (talk)

Here on Wikipedia qualifications do matter, not what you (or any of us) personally think is "right" or true. There are rules here. Please see WP:TRUTH and WP:GREATWRONGS. I read what you added. As I explained. The FtDNA source says nothing about Khazars and does not connect haplogroup Q to them (Coffman does but FtDNA does not). It has to explicity mention the topic of the article to be relevant. An editor's personal opinion of its relevance does not matter. Thus adding what FtDNA says is WP:OR. As editors we edit based on what the (reliable) sources say, not personal opinion or our own analyses or synthesis of sources (which is WP:OR, see link - also see WP:NPOV - both against Wikipedia policies). Skllagyook (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I even edited my page.

I'm going to report EVERY person who deletes the content of my page for vandalism!.

1) This is not your page. Please read WP:OWN. 2) Are you related to the editor who created this article? M.Bitton (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2021 (UTC)